Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Two individuals, along with other plaintiffs, filed suit under Section 7 of the Clayton Act to block a proposed merger between two airlines. After their case was filed, the U.S. Department of Justice, joined by several states and the District of Columbia, brought a separate action challenging the same merger. Both cases were assigned to the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, but were not consolidated. The district court found that only two of the original plaintiffs had standing, dismissing the others. The plaintiffs’ request to consolidate their case with the DOJ’s was denied.The DOJ case proceeded to trial first, resulting in a bench trial judgment that the merger violated the Clayton Act, and the court permanently enjoined the merger. The airlines appealed but later abandoned the merger and dismissed their appeal. As a result, the district court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ case as moot, since the relief they sought had already been granted in the DOJ case. The dismissed plaintiffs then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs, arguing they were prevailing parties under Section 16 of the Clayton Act because their efforts contributed to the outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties eligible for attorneys’ fees. The court held that, under the standard set by Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, a party must obtain a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties, such as a judgment on the merits or a consent decree. Because the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed as moot without a judgment on the merits, and they were not beneficiaries of the injunction in the DOJ case, the court concluded they were not prevailing parties. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Garavanian v. JetBlue Airways Corp." on Justia Law

Investors in a major drug-development company alleged that the company and two of its officers misled them about the integrity of the company’s overseas supply chain for long-tailed macaques, which are essential for its business. After China halted exports of these monkeys due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the company shifted to suppliers in Cambodia and Vietnam, some of which were later implicated in a federal investigation into illegal wildlife trafficking. Despite public signs of the investigation and seizures of shipments, the company’s CEO assured investors that its supply chain was unaffected by the federal indictment of certain suppliers, and that the indicted supplier was not one of its own. However, evidence suggested that the company was, in fact, sourcing macaques from entities targeted by the investigation, either directly or through intermediaries.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the investors’ class action complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or scienter (intent or recklessness), and therefore did not reach the issue of loss causation. The court also dismissed the derivative claim against the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the investors plausibly alleged that the company and its CEO knowingly or recklessly misled investors in November 2022 by assuring them that the company’s supply chain was not implicated in the federal investigation, when in fact it was. The court found these statements actionable, but agreed with the lower court that other statements about “non-preferred vendors” were not independently misleading. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal as to the November 2022 statements and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of loss causation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a radio talk show host and church founder, began selling bitcoin in 2014. The government investigated his bitcoin sales and charged him with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and tax evasion. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court acquitted him of the substantive money laundering count due to insufficient evidence but upheld the other convictions.The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court should not have allowed the money-transmitting-business charges to proceed to trial, citing the "major questions doctrine" which he claimed should exempt virtual currencies like bitcoin from regulatory statutes. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his tax evasion conviction and that he should be granted a new trial on the money laundering conspiracy count due to prejudicial evidentiary spillover. Additionally, he argued that his 96-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the defendant's major questions doctrine argument, holding that the statutory definition of "money transmitting business" under 31 U.S.C. § 5330 includes businesses dealing in virtual currencies like bitcoin. The court found that the plain meaning of "funds" encompasses virtual currencies and that the legislative history and subsequent congressional actions supported this interpretation.The court also found sufficient evidence to support the tax evasion conviction, noting that the defendant had substantial unreported income and engaged in conduct suggesting willful evasion of taxes. The court rejected the claim of prejudicial spillover, concluding that the evidence related to the money laundering conspiracy was admissible and relevant.Finally, the court upheld the 96-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given the defendant's conduct and the factors considered by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and the defendant's convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Freeman" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the former owner-operator of a professional baseball franchise in Puerto Rico and the league, its president, and other franchise owners. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to force the former owner to relinquish control of the franchise, violating the Sherman Act, a federal civil rights statute, and various Puerto Rico laws. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions were in retaliation for the former owner's public criticism of the conditions at the team's stadium and his proposal to move the team to another municipality.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims, citing the "business of baseball" exemption. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs' claims under Puerto Rico's antitrust and fair competition laws were preempted by federal law. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal civil rights claim on res judicata grounds, based on a prior judgment from the Superior Court of San Juan. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims, agreeing that the "business of baseball" exemption applied to the Puerto Rico professional baseball league. However, the court vacated the District Court's dismissal of the Puerto Rico antitrust and fair competition claims, finding that the District Court had incorrectly applied the Supremacy Clause. The court also reversed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claim, concluding that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal of the remaining Puerto Rico law claim, as a federal claim remained in the case. View "Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Beisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, Tucker Cianchette secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in Maine Superior Court against his father, step-mother, and two LLCs after they backed out of a 2015 agreement that would have given him sole control of a Ford dealership. Following this, in 2021, Eric and Peggy Cianchette, along with Cianchette Family, LLC, and Better Way Ford, LLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that Ford Motor Company violated state and federal laws during the failed 2015 negotiations and through false testimony by Ford employees in Tucker's 2016 suit.The 2021 lawsuit was initially filed in Maine Superior Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The District Court dismissed all claims against Ford, leading the plaintiffs to appeal. The plaintiffs argued that Ford's actions during the 2015 negotiations and the 2016 lawsuit constituted violations of Maine's civil perjury statute, the Dealers Act, the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, and also amounted to breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Ford made any false representations or that any reliance on such representations was justified. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims under the Dealers Act were barred by res judicata due to a prior ruling by the Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board. Additionally, the court concluded that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to the breach of contract claims under Michigan law, as the SSA explicitly granted Ford the right to approve changes in ownership. View "Better Way Ford, LLC v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The case involves an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Gregory Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false statements of material fact, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and violated securities laws, resulting in approximately $1.3 million in illegal profits. The SEC sought disgorgement of these profits, a permanent injunction, and civil monetary penalties. Lemelson moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court dismissed one of the challenged statements. The SEC filed an amended complaint, and the jury ultimately found Lemelson liable for three statements but rejected other claims.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts held Lemelson in contempt for violating a protective order and threatening a priest who provided information to the SEC. After the jury verdict, the district court issued a final judgment, including a five-year injunction against Lemelson and a $160,000 civil penalty. Lemelson appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Lemelson then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that the SEC's demands were excessive compared to the final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of Lemelson's motion for fees and costs. The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly compared the SEC's demand to the scope of the initial claims rather than the final judgment obtained. The appellate court vacated the denial of fees and costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the SEC's demands were excessive and unreasonable compared to the final judgment. The appellate court also noted that the district court should consider whether Lemelson acted in bad faith or if special circumstances make an award unjust. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lemelson" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, representing nine closed-end mutual funds, sued Ocean Capital LLC and several individuals and firms for allegedly committing securities violations. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants misled their shareholders by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures, violating Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and other applicable SEC rules. The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss, leading the plaintiffs to appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lépez-Soler recommended dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint on grounds of failure to state a claim and mootness. The district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims but retaining jurisdiction over the defendants' counterclaims. The plaintiffs then moved for a stay of the proceedings on the counterclaims, which was denied. The district court granted the defendants' requested relief on their counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees for the board of directors of three funds. The plaintiffs timely appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a Section 13(d) claim for the non-PRRTFF IV funds and did not demonstrate irreparable harm for PRRTFF IV. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claims were insufficient, as the statements in question were not materially misleading. Consequently, the court upheld the district court's judgment on the defendants' counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees. View "Tax-Free Fixed Income Fund for Puerto Rico Residents, Inc. v. Ocean Capital LLC" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC, alleging that from 2014 to 2018, Commonwealth failed to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest related to its revenue-sharing agreement with National Financial Services, LLC (NFS). The SEC claimed this omission violated Sections 206(2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and SEC Rule 206(4)-7. Commonwealth's representatives, who provided investment advice to clients, were unaware of the revenue-sharing arrangement, which the SEC argued created a conflict of interest by incentivizing Commonwealth to direct clients to higher-cost mutual fund share classes that generated revenue-sharing income.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that Commonwealth's disclosures were inadequate as a matter of law and that the firm acted negligently. The court also denied Commonwealth's cross-motion for summary judgment and its motion to reconsider. Subsequently, the district court entered final judgment against Commonwealth, ordering disgorgement of $65,588,906 in revenue-sharing income, $21,185,162 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $6,500,000. The court struck Commonwealth's expert declaration proposing an alternative disgorgement calculation and adopted the SEC's proposed amount.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and the disgorgement order, remanding for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the issue of materiality should have been decided by a jury, as reasonable minds could differ on whether the additional disclosures would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to investors. The court also found that the SEC had not adequately shown a reasonable approximation or causal connection between Commonwealth's profits and the alleged violations, and that the district court must consider whether Commonwealth is entitled to deduct its expenses from any disgorgement awarded. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC" on Justia Law